Let’s get this straight: I am no fan of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. If there’s a more blatantly political, downright embarrassing judicial body in all of the United States, please, let us know.
And don’t even get me started on Starcher.
But I have to say, one the the best indicators of whether or not someone is plain fucking stupid where they came down on the McGraw / Brent Benjamin election. West Virginia has problems. But the idea that it was somehow all Warren McGraw’s fault, and that electing a totally underwhelming occupational pneumonicosis lawyer to the Supreme Court was going to fix everything — that’s about as stupid as it gets. But it turns out all it took was a few million dollars of Don Blankenship’s blood money — and one of the most disgusting smear campaigns ever waged in a judicial election — to get Charleston’s South Hills set to drink every drop of the kool aid.
Benjamin may be a nice guy — but it’s hard to respect a man who sits in a seat bought and paid for by a single, murderous robber baron. And it’s hard to take seriously the opinions of anyone who thought they were doing West Virginia a favor by voting for him.
October 25, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Um, what brought that on, sir?
October 25, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Now just a minute, HK.
The Don has just dropped his lawsuit against the Democrats, feeling vindicated, I believe he said.
Apparently that pesky 1st Amendment thingy seems to rear its head at the most inopportune time for him and hisn’s.
As a leading pusher for the Tort finaglers, Don and his benevolent and munificent accolytes have practically guaranteed that we unwashed WVians will all be zillionaires and WV will be a combo of Nirvana and Shangri-La if we”ll just agree to do away with our rights to a courtroom.
I can’t wait but questions linger in my mind……..What important lawsuit will the Don file next? How long will it take to be laughed out of the building?
When and if WVians commit this version of constitutional suicide how will Donnie assuaged his wounded pride if a slight is perceived by him?
Luckily for all of us, Don-boy would never engage in frivolity in the courtroom. No, not our savior.
One thing that is certain, his personal lawyer, Brent, will say “Shame on us” if we don’t take Donski’s advice.
October 25, 2007 at 4:00 pm
This one seems to be coming a bit late. Regardless of what you think of how he got elected, Brent Benjamin has done a pretty decent job so far.
October 25, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Do a search on the old blog, I hit this a couple times back then. I’d link to it, but I’m lazy.
It was a comment on another post that set me off. You know, the one about “follerin’ me looking for ugly!” or whatever.
But mostly, I’ve always wanted to do a post called “IDK, MY BFF DON BLANKENSHIP.” This was all the excuse I needed.
October 25, 2007 at 5:11 pm
The one thing I have learned about politicians, the one really sad but universal truth, is that they are all for sale. They might not think they are. They might go into politics with purposes and with a pure heart. But there is something about political office that turns human beings into the most shameless whores god ever put on the Earth. Once they get in they will do anything to stay there. They will say anything, they will do anything and there’s nothing they won’t do. It’s very strange.
I wonder what is so great about being in political office that makes people do what they are willing to do for it How good could being a W.Va. Supreme Ct. judge be that you would sell your ass to someone like Blankenship to get it?
I wonder the same thing about men and sex. How can anything be as good as sex must be to men that they are willing to do what they do over it? I mean, I love sex but I can’t imagine loving it enough to put up with we women to get it. Politics is the same with me. Sex and political office seems to obliterate all reason in the human animal.
No offense sisters but you know exactly what I mean.
October 25, 2007 at 5:24 pm
HK,
Starcher sold his ass the same way Benajamin sold his….they just used different pimps. One is no better than the other.
October 25, 2007 at 5:37 pm
I agree Mountain Daddy….
but there is one kind of politician that doesn’t sell themselves: the ones so rich they get elected on their own money. Like Rockefeller, for example. I don’t always agree with the tall scary looking rich whitey, but you don’t have to worry about him being corrupt.
October 25, 2007 at 5:41 pm
umm… yeah, Kim. Interesting way of connecting two not entirely similar things. One is a power thing. Presumably, people get into politics to wield power. Most, I believe, do it because they think what they’re doing is right -even if it looks fucked in the head to everyone else.
And sex… fuck it. Who knows why we get involved with anyone? It amazes me more people aren’t using heroin, actually.
October 25, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Thanks, HK. It just seemed a little left fieldy.
Weirder still is how the comments in this post went from Bship and Benjamin to sex and heroin.
October 26, 2007 at 8:25 am
There’s little gelt in politics and graft
Compared with larceny by bank or trust.
The power of the office is unsure
When weighed against the might of unearned wealth.
The post, once gained lies ever unsecure.
If Master Mammon turns his face upon
The well-scrubbed visage of a different tool;
He’ll have the tinseled honors snatched away.
No, gold and power do not drive their souls
To climb this wretched “cursus non honorum.”
The “plaudite” of plebs is the ambrosia,
That makes them vaunt their small, indentured souls.
The fire in their veins burns not for love.
The gnawing in their bones is not for gold.
The craving in their soul is for applause;
For affirmation from a million hands.
Addicted to the fawning public eye,
Beholden to the plutocrats above
Two fickle masters own their high-throned arses.
And I, my friends, may only pity them.
October 26, 2007 at 8:45 am
FLASH! OFF TOPIC!
Carnegie Mellon Study Ranks Most Informative Blogs!
GUESS WHO CAME-N NUMBER 2? DON SURBER! HAHAHA!
http://www.bloggersblog.com/cgi-bin/bloggersblog.pl?bblog=1024072
October 26, 2007 at 9:18 am
By “for sale” I didn’t just mean money. Rockefeller might be filthy rich but he still does things that would make a hyena gag so that he can stay in office. Exhibit 1 - the war. The people wanted it and he gave it to them even though he knew what was going to happen. The guy isn’t stupid but he saw what was happening to Byrd.
And I agree Bill, sex and power are interchangebale on so many levels. Heroin also bears similarities to the addiction/pleasure aspects of sex. And it’s cheaper in the long run.
Didn’t mean to get off the subject matter but drugs, money and sex do apply when it comes to a discussion on the dynamics of politics. Actually, I think that men came up with the political system so that they could legally exercise all their basic animal instincts (that are otherwise suppressed by societal restraints) and not only get away with it but be rewarded!
October 26, 2007 at 9:40 am
Goddamn Don Surber. “Informative”? The guy is a liar. I took apart one of his posts with the facts one time and called him Festus. He deleted my posts and started posting these sophmoric posts in my name. Stuff like “Im stupid” - Kim. Deleting my posts was one thing, hijacking my screen name and posting under is another. Surber is stupid, a bad writer, a propegandist and a pussy.
Is this Canegie Mellon the real thing? Or is it like the “Princeton Review” (whichhas nothing to do with Princeton U.). How could any legitimate organization consider Surber informative.
October 26, 2007 at 10:20 am
Uh, speak for yourself. I have no clue what you mean.
October 26, 2007 at 10:41 am
Red,
I think you must be young. Women take a lot out of men and women wield their sexual power in sometimes unkindly ways. We live in a society that is taught to fear men. They live in fear of being of being accused. They live in a world that tells them all their ingrained instincts are evil and women tend to exploit that. I’m speaking generally here and am not trying to paint with a broad brush. But I think men are distinctly disadvantaged when it comes to sex. They are at the mercy of women who often mistake their sexual vulnerablilty as weakness and we can be cruel.
This is my own personal bullshit opinion and nothing more but it’s based on experience and observation as well. Sorry if I offended you.
Sorry HK for getting off the subject.
October 26, 2007 at 11:00 am
This Surber business deserves its own post. Stay tuned.
OH, and re: Rockefeller and him being to rich to be bought…well, if you’ve been following the debate on whether or not to give retroactive amnesty to telecoms who assist Bush’s illegal spying programs — well, Rockefeller has been on of the worst sellouts. And it’s no coincidence that AT&T is one of his biggest financial contributors.
And as far as Starcher goes: he’s a pretty sincere feller, but at the end of the day, he’s is a straight up nut job. He’s the kind of guy who sends his black employees to racial sensitivity training (true story). He’s also a good example of the kind of liberal I don’t like: the kind of liberal (always white, usually older and almost certainly with money) whose concern for typical “liberal causes” (like health care, and how we treat the least among us) comes not from a belief that we’re all in this together, and that we’re all equal — but from a sense of benevolent superiority. Like there’s this “other” class of people they’re supposed to “help.”
The thing that bothers me about Benjamin is that his seat was bought by 1 single person.
October 26, 2007 at 11:10 am
Mmm…I think if you’re a boy and you’re at the mercy of a woman when it comes to sex you’re in deep, deep trouble.
October 26, 2007 at 11:16 am
I can respect JDR’s view on telecoms - if the federal gummint comes and asks you to do a thing, is it wrong to assume that the request is legal? The real test will be not how the telecoms are punished, but how the administration that directed them to do these things is punished. Imagine youre a telecom - the Fed wields considerable control (or at times decides not to) over your industry. From a political standpoint, its smart to obey their requests when you can? To my mind the administration should be pushined for committing and illegal act, and also for instructing others to commit illegal acts.
HK is dead right about why Benjamin’s presence is significant - by being placed there by a single person, that person has even more power than the seat Benjamine occupies.
I also believe Kim is manipulating my baser male instincts to infatuate me…….lawd hep me.
October 26, 2007 at 11:19 am
“if the federal gummint comes and asks you to do a thing, is it wrong to assume that the request is legal?”
When it’s the Bush administration, YES.
October 26, 2007 at 11:37 am
If the telecoms have done nothing wrong then they have no concerns regarding lawsuits.
Now why is it that they want immunity?
And if they accept that immunity does that say that they have done something wrong?
The odor from this one is terrible.
October 26, 2007 at 11:56 am
The biggest problem with the entire judicial system is that it’s tainted with politics. Judges should not be at the mercy of the whims of the electorate when applying the law to the facts. The citizens aren’t privy to what judges are privy to. But let a judge show some compassion to the wrong person and his career is over. That is why you have fucked up Supreme Court decisions . Justices are at the mercy of not only their benefactors but an uniformed public opinion that is easily manipulated because of ignorance of the law and the unique facts of a case.
Judges have to temper the actual law and the notions of justice with how the electorate will view their decisions at election time. That is the biggest problem with the justice system. Careers can be made over prosecutions, judges can be broken by one bad decision, enemies can distort a judges record however they like and the general public will not know any better. Not to mention the iron heel of influence that pervades the system. You don’t know what judge plays golf with what business man or big time law firm partner. Charleston is rife with iron heels in the judiciary. But I’m sure it’s the same all over.
The law has little to do with justice I’m afraid.
And Big Stomp, I’m like the devil, I know men’s souls and I love them anyway.
October 26, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Well, it’ll be a lot harder to figure out who in the administration did what with regard to this telecom stuff and who should be punished and how if all of the law suits against the telecoms are thrown out of court because they have immunity.
I can actually buy the argument that in some cases when the government asks you to do something you shouldn’t be held liable for doing it, since it’s not unreasonable to think that it’s legal (and it’s almost coercion), but I don’t think it’s wise to make that a blanket rule. Whether or not the telecoms should be held liable is something that should be worked out in the judicial system. Giving them immunity only helps the administration, because it keeps this stuff in the dark.
Off topic — Kim, I don’t know what you consider to be young, but I’m 30, whatever that means to you. I just find all this “women are like this, men are like that” bullshit to be irritating. If it’s just your own opinion, you should say so, instead of acting like you’re speaking universal truths with which all of womankind agrees. I mean, maybe the men you have sex with have to “put up with you” in order to have sex with you, but I prefer sexual partners who actually, you know, enjoy being around me.
October 26, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Red, you didn’t read my disclaimer which said exactly what you said. I said that was my own opinion, I said it was not true of everyone. And you missed my point entirely.
My opinion, own personal opinion and no more, is that after some experience in life, is that many women, for all they consider themselves creatures of hieghtened sensitivities, are amazing clueless about what is at the core of the male, generally speaking. I also think, after observation and life experience, and only in my opinion, that some women, not all but some, tend to embrace a victim culture starring men as the villians. and I feel sorry for men because of it. But in my opinion, my own opinion in a generalized sense, men can be just as victimized by women as the other way around.
That is my opinion. No more, no less and I dont’ consider it to be true of all women it is only a generalized beleif that applies to some and not to others. I am not a fan of radical feminism or victim culture. In fact, as a woman I resent these militants telling me that men are the enemy.
October 26, 2007 at 1:42 pm
DAMN! A cat fight! Its true - you guys DO know what men want! Thats hot!
October 26, 2007 at 1:52 pm
BigStomp, this very catfight (and you’re right it is) is pretty typical of my experiences with women. There could be a 1,000 people on this board, two of whom were women, and they would eventually gravitate towards each other and start feuding (that has been my experience mostly, not always true). Put a bunch of men together and they build the pyramids of Eypt. Put a bunch of women together and they are so busy tearing each other apart that they die of starvation.
But that is my opinion and my own personal experience, not always true. In fact, I thought it was assumed that what people say on these boards is opinion. I didn’t think it had to be articulated. Guess not.
October 26, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Except for the bunch of men in the White House. They put their heads together and started a totally unnecessary and murderous war.
October 26, 2007 at 2:28 pm
There’s that.
October 26, 2007 at 2:44 pm
God, you are difficult to put up with. Luckily, I’m not trying to get in your pants.
October 26, 2007 at 2:51 pm
My point exactly and you aren’t the first one to make that well taken point. I don’t dellude myself.
Truce? Let’s show these men we are the exception to all my bullshit universal truths.
Sorry to dissapoint you Big.
October 26, 2007 at 3:12 pm
In a world where women are sometimes stoned to death for alleged adultery, where equal work does not always mean equal pay, where girls and women are raped as a weapon of war, and where (even in the most freedom-loving countries) women have had the vote for less than a century, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that men still have the upper hand.
(I’m just saying that some women probably feel they have a pretty good idea about what is at the core of the male, generally speaking.)
October 26, 2007 at 3:12 pm
AND… Don Blankenship’s a prick.
October 26, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Thanks Capcitykitty. In a world where it was not a crime in all 50 U.S. states for a man to rape his wife until 1993, Kim feels sorry for men because they have the fear of being accused of rape (versus the fear of actually being raped).
I’ll just add (for Kim) that it’s not a tenet of feminism that men are the enemy. Try reading a book. Anyway, I’m done with this conversation now, since it’s wildly off topic and going nowhere fast. So sure, yeah, truce, whatever.
October 26, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Wow Red, you’ve changed my life. How did I get this far without you. And take your condescending, self important bullshit and stick it up your ass.
In true womanly form you have taken what should have been a pretty benign situation and turned it typically nasty in true feminine form.
But you did make my point.
Therefore, owing to the poisining of the well I will end my brief foray into HK’s blog.
It’s all yours Red.
October 26, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Very intense. This shit never happens at my place unless I mention the words Sammy Kershaw… Jesus.
And my two cents…we’re not the enemy… but sometimes we’re less than cannon fodder. Meanwhile, where’s my smack, ’cause the booze ain’t getting it.
October 26, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Condescending? You’re the one who started off talking down to me because I “must be young.” Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
October 26, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Sorry, HK.
October 26, 2007 at 4:30 pm
The comment she left about the Boss should have been a warning to the rest of you.
October 27, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Jeepers creepers! All this talk about women cutting each other off at the knees and not ONE mention of Rock of Love?
October 27, 2007 at 7:09 pm
I like Kim. She kept it hopping.
October 29, 2007 at 12:45 pm
“He’s also a good example of the kind of liberal I don’t like: the kind of liberal (always white, usually older and almost certainly with money) whose concern for typical “liberal causes” (like health care, and how we treat the least among us) comes not from a belief that we’re all in this together, and that we’re all equal — but from a sense of benevolent superiority. Like there’s this “other” class of people they’re supposed to “help.””
All liberals are like that - here to take care of us because we’re all too stupid to manage our own affairs, or to think properly.
October 29, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Yeah, who needs liberals to tell you what to think when you have Rush to do it for you.
October 29, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Oh please. You’re kidding me? That’s the best you can come up with? That’s hardly a real response to my assertion that liberals want a cradle-to-grave nanny state, and think the peasants need their superior intellect and wisdom. Invoking Rush is all ya’ got? In fact, you’re kind of reinforcing my point - if I believe what I believe and don’t agree with you, I must be too stupid to come up with this on my own.
I expected more, I guess.
October 29, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I like Kim, too. She understands me…
October 29, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Yeah, a “nanny state.” I’m sorry, I didn’t know that you were the guy who came up with that all by himself.
Last I checked, it is conservatives who are so obsessed with telling people what they can and can’t do in privacy of their own fucking homes and bedrooms. But that’s right, you guys don’t even believe in a right to privacy in the first place.
Look buddy, if you want someone to engage you here, you’re going to have to roll up with something other than 20 year old talk radio bullshit. Because we’ve heard all that stuff before.
October 29, 2007 at 7:16 pm
OK, lets just assume for a moment that I have a mind of my own and that I’m not engaging in “20 year old talk radio bullshit”. While I might not have posted on this blog much before, lets also assume that I’ve read and enjoyed it for quite some time, so I have the advantage of having some idea about how you think, but other than one posting, you really have no idea about how I think. For example, I don’t give a rats ass about what you or anyone else does in their own home or bedroom. I don’t know who the “you guys” are that I’m supposed to be a part of - I guess you believe that there are no individuals, just groups that must all think and act alike, or at least be treated that way. You put me in a group - apparently one that you think is composed of ignorant, stupid rednecks that couldn’t possibly come up with any idea on their own.
Maybe instead of using the widely recognized and long used term “nanny state”, I should have gone into great detail about what I was meaning, using 20 words instead of 2 words. I thought it made the point - kind of like “robber baron” - I knew what you meant. I didn’t accuse you of plagiarizing 1880’s editorial writers.
To my original point - the face (and leadership) of liberalism is Ted Kennedy, Bob Byrd, Nancy Pelosi, Reid, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, etc., etc., etc., all of whom want to run our lives from a “sense of benevolent superiority”. Like it or not, that is liberalism, at least how its practiced in gov’t, which is where it really effects us.
Tell me I’m wrong - you can even be mean about it - but don’t just assume I’m stupid because I don’t agree with you.
October 29, 2007 at 8:32 pm
It seemed to me that you were called unoriginal not stupid and assuming you are correct (your not), I’ll take benevolent superiority over the decidedly unbenevolence of the Gilded Age.
Why in the hell did the state of WV have to kick in $500,000 towards Massey’s new HQ?!?!?
October 30, 2007 at 12:55 am
I assumed you are stupid because you said something stupid. It’s really that simple.
October 30, 2007 at 1:25 am
Scott, you do amaze as you protest.
Your rhetoric most clearly manifests
The flaw your canard “liberal” presents…
Labeling in place of argument.
I sense that you’ll do better, given time.
(I hope by then, I’ll cop some better rhymes.)
The nanny state could use a scourge or two.
If you’re up to it - might as well be you.
The rich indignitaries in your list
(Except for Byrd) aren’t too hard to resist.
You’re right in this - originality
Is not the hallmark of their policy.
Although our candidates don’t suit me well,
Six solid years of Halliburton’s hell,
The wars, the drowning cities, endless fear;
The lying, smirking arrogance that here…
…abides and stinks and roils from what should be
The safeguard of our precious liberty.
The stain of torture on our reputation,
The loss of our first place among free nations;
Means I will not clasp hands with those who still
Insist that they alone divine God’s will,
And hire a murderous mercenary crew
To do what our brave soldiers can not do.
But still, come forth and do the best you can.
I hope I’m brother to each thinking man.
Good luck, Scott, in our sometimes hostile hostel.
The nannycrats get right up my left nostril.
October 30, 2007 at 8:36 am
Labeling in place of argument?
Isn’t that what the internet is all about?
October 30, 2007 at 2:29 pm
To HK - UH UH! YOU’RE STUPID!!
(geesh)
To Peregrinus - Thank you!
October 30, 2007 at 4:43 pm
HK said: “Yeah, who needs liberals to tell you what to think when you have Rush to do it for you.”
. . . and I totally agree. My actions have long been dictated by a middle-grade 70’s prog-literati-rock band. It’s just good to have company. (I always knew we were kindred spirits, I just didn’t know it was Spirit of the Radio)
October 31, 2007 at 8:15 am
I think people who go around calling other people stupid are stupid. I personally know Justice Starcher….hell I like the guy a bunch, but I don’t think he should be on the court. He has an agenda…and every case that comes before him is seen through the eyes of that agenda; that is not what good sound judges do.
HK, disagrees with Benjamin’s annointment to the court. I have no doubt Benjamin himself is a bit embarassed about it. However, Blankenships freedom of speech to spend his money however he pleases is no different from MoveOn.org or HK’s blog.
As long as people are engaging their government and its politics, via blogs, newspapers, rallies or, yes, even talk radio - its a good thing.
With all do respect, blowhard Rush Limbaugh…..and yes, he is a blowhard, is no more biased than National Public Radio…and anyone trying to pretend that NPR is not biased…is well, Stu$#@.
October 31, 2007 at 9:16 am
Anybody who thinks Limbaugh and NPR operate on the same propagandist plane is stupid as fuck. Or that HK’s blog has the same potential to drown out the free speech of others as does Blankenship’s disposable millions is just downright ignorant. Or that any public figure as fat and goofy-looking as Brent Benjamine is self-aware enough to be embarrassed about anything is just plain retarded.
October 31, 2007 at 9:48 am
Name calling’s a bore
Let’s have something more…
Rather than labels,
How ’bout some fables?
Examples of bias;
Go ahead, try us.
______
It shouldn’t be hard to find clear evidence,
Of Limbaugh’s or NPR’s slanted presents.
Let’s have ‘em, but realize media spinning
Is gen’rally done by the side that is sinning.
My take? The slanting of NPR’s somewhat less rabid.
The result of a genteel up-east J-school habit.
Limbaugh, O’Brian, and that wretched lot
Lie mostly on purpose, and when they get caught,
They calumnate those who who come shining the light.
On the faults of “Dear Leader,” and his band o’ blight.
It’s their hectoring tone, and their slandering lies
That cause me to discount what comes from the guys
And the gals who staff “Pravda for Rupert” each day
And make me wish someone could keep them at bay.
October 31, 2007 at 11:46 am
Well. I was saying I think some liberals are a little full of it. I was hoping for some discussion. What I got instead was “All liberals are like that - here to take care of us because we’re all too stupid to manage our own affairs, or to think properly..” I’m sorry, that’s just talk radio bullshit. And whenever someone says liberals want a ” cradle to grave nanny state,” that’s a pretty good indication that it’s pointless for me to waste my time with them. I find myself feeling the same way about people who wear Crocs.
If you think NPR has a liberal bias, then you probably don’t listen to much NPR. I could be wrong though. But didn’t Steven T. Colbert say reality has a liberal bias? Either way, it’s pretty well established by now that Rush Limbaugh is a hateful comedian who just makes shit up. “Bias” isn’t even an issue here. Comparing Rush to NPR is like comparing apples to dinosaurs.
Talk radio thrives on that kind of stuff though. An organization like Move On backing a political candidate, and a single scumbag like Don Blankenship using his own personal fortune to buy a seat on the WV Supreme Court are not the same things, and it’s purely ridiculous that campaign finance laws treat them as such. But I don’t have the answer on that one.
I see Benjamin at the grocery store all the time, and he is indeed about as goofy looking as they come. I honestly can’t tell if he’s self aware though. Still, he sits on the Court because of the millions of dollars of blood money spent by a single robber baron, plain and simple. It really doesn’t make it any less fucked up and wrong if he’s embarrassed about it.
October 31, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I agree with Peregrinus
he rhymes while I stammer
but name-calls too
with velvet, not hammer.
October 31, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Move On is an organization relying heavily on the $ of one guy, who’s using his millions to influence politics - how is that any different than Blankenship? Well, other than the fact that Blankenship is trying to have an effect on the State level, Soros on the National? If Blankenship formed a PAC funded entirely by him, but now considered an organization, would that be OK?
October 31, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I have given money to MoveOn. My family has given money to MoveOn. I have friends and co-workers who have done the same. MoveOn does not endorse specific candidates. I don’t know anyone who has given money to Blankenship to support his poltical efforts, or anyone whop has given to that cyncial, empty store-front And For the Sake of the Kids. And Blankenship most certainly does endorse specific candidates. You say Soros. I say Murdoch. Checkmate.
October 31, 2007 at 2:59 pm
See, there he goes. I could really give a shit about Move On, but they rely heavily on the money of LOTS of people, not just that dark, sinister George Soros. He gave Move On $1.46 million in 2004, which happened to be a good bit less than what Don Blankenship spent to get Brent Benjamin elected.
And to answer your question about “what if Blankenship formed a PAC funded entirely by him?,” well — WHAT THE FUCK do you think “…and for the KIDS” was?
October 31, 2007 at 3:00 pm
This is stupid.
It is also Hump Day. I’m ready to go find the best pour of Guinness in downtown Charleston. Where is it?
October 31, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I think we are saying the same thing - except for Big Stomp who resorts to name calling. The Court itself doesn’t seem to have any intellectual heavy weights….and Soros/Move.org is exactly the same thing as Blankenship (who is a scary man in and of himself).
And yes, NPR’s political coverage is very biased. I support NPR..but, I am not going to lie for them.
October 31, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Seriously. Didn’t anyone watch Kitchen Nightmares tonight? Those fucking roaches.
Speaking of, anybody up for Cozumel this weekend?
October 31, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Dude. I don’t know what I have to do to make this clear to you. Soros represents a fraction of Move On’s money. The family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain has given them significantly more for Christ’s sake.
I get the feeling this isn’t a very important issue to you, which is fine. But if you had better information, you’d be more likely to realize that you’re comparing apples and oranges.
November 1, 2007 at 12:53 pm
My point is that left/right they’re all the same. HK has decided I’m some right-wing mindless drone, and that’s fine (but wrong). My bet (and I admit I don’t know) is that Soros has thrown more individual money into politics in the last few years than anyone in the US. My point wasn’t a slam against him or MoveOn, just pointing out that DB is hardly the only one doing it. If you think its wrong for Blankenship, then it should be wrong for Soros. My feeling - its their money to spend as they see fit. It obviously has been a waste, at times, for both of those guys, and many others - in fact, other than getting Benjamin in office, DB has been pretty unsuccessful, which makes me think its kind of funny to watch him throw his money away.
November 1, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I find it curious that folks think Blankenship is “one guy.” Blankenship is just a mouthpiece for coal interests. The money isn’t all his, it comes from a lot of different corporate sources in southern WV and elsewhere, most of them related to the extractive mineral industries in some way. He does put a lot of his, and his company’s cash in the pot, but to treat him like he is some sort of individual isn’t totally accurate.
November 1, 2007 at 4:11 pm
You’re right, HK; it isn’t very important because W.Va is lawless. The court will do what it wants…the gov will do what he wants..the legislature will do what the gov wants because they are legislative losers…..
So, it doesn’t matter who is on the court… all that matters is we still have Larry Groce and Mountain Stage ;-)
November 1, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Goddammit, humor goes a long way with me.
Thanks for being the only person to make me laugh today :-)
November 2, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Mountain Daddy, I think it does matter a lot who we have on the Supreme Court in this State.
If you don’t think swapping Larry “skinny santa” “Yosemite sam” Starcher out for Beth Walker is going to change how things freaking operate in this state you are totally out of touch or you haven’t researched the candidates.
November 9, 2007 at 9:44 am
I haven’t researched, because I don’t care. We’ve got Mountain Stage baby.
“There’s a stream………………….. :-)
November 9, 2007 at 11:56 am
Not this weekend, though. They’re on the road, yet again, in Morgantown.
November 9, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Then Julie is their problem. What would happen if she forgot her glasses? Would the show go on?!!!!!
November 14, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Jesus, Peregrinus! You take annoying to new heights! Now I remember why I don’t read the comments anymore.
November 15, 2007 at 11:39 am
Peregrinus is a bore. Write a poem about that.
November 15, 2007 at 2:36 pm
There once was a commenter Peregrinus
Whose rhymes ended up annoying us
And unlike the bird
The words soared like a turd
Giving me a ten minute grimace
Off topic question: Are there women out there named Tracy Peterson thinking they could be next?
November 15, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Good God, Jay, that’s really your best
For an insult? Sorry, I’m unimpressed.
You can’t rhyme, you can’t scan,
That’s just PITIFUL, man!
My detractors skills leave me depressed.
-P
November 23, 2007 at 6:36 pm
With the ruling by the court reported this week, I’d say Blankenship got good return on his “investment”.
Not as good as Haliburton on Darth Cheney’s severance, but good.
January 12, 2008 at 11:42 am
So, this is an old post, but I ended up back here reading through the comments again somehow and I feel compelled to add something, just so it’s on record. The major difference between what Don Blankenship did in 2004 and what the MoveOn PAC does (to respond to something else upthread, MoveOn.org doesn’t advocate for specific candidates, but their PAC does) is not simply that DB worked on the state level and MoveOn works on the national level, it’s that DB was trying to buy a JUDGE who would rule in his and his industry’s favor and MoveOn tries to help elect LEGISLATIVE candidates who agree with them on certain political issues. I don’t think I need to explain the difference. I realize that in a state that elects its Supreme Court justices (rather than appoints them), that’s entirely legal, but it doesn’t make it right.
Scott said: “Move On is an organization relying heavily on the $ of one guy, who’s using his millions to influence politics - how is that any different than Blankenship?” It’s different because judges aren’t supposed to be political. They’re supposed to be unbiased. I’m not naive, so I realize expecting our state Supreme Court not to be political is a fantasy, but it still doesn’t make it right.
June 26, 2008 at 4:38 am
[...] I’m not going to say that I dropped the ball, but. Back in October, I wrote (yet another) post where I expressed how I tend to spontaneously vomit whenever I think about the multi-million dollar smear job Don Blankenship used to install the patently oafish Brent Benjamin on the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. I called the post “IDK, My BFF Don Blankenship?” [...]